law student wrote:In other words, only for the rule to be modified, both Houses must agree to the modification or only for the rule to be cancelled, both Houses must agree. If there is no agreement on modification or cancellation, the rule stands and is valid

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Please note the following in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it says "Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament.....". It clearly means every rule must go to both houses of Parliament for approval, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959. Conversely it means if any rule is not sent to both houses of Parliament, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it does not acquire the force of law. And this is exactly what seems to have happened in case of these new arms rules.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Please note the following in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it says "Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament.....". It clearly means every rule must go to both houses of Parliament for approval, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959. Conversely it means if any rule is not sent to both houses of Parliament, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it does not acquire the force of law. And this is exactly what seems to have happened in case of these new arms rules.

I did look at that. However the rule only needs to be laid before each House for amendment or cancellation and not for approval. From what I have heard it was laid before each House in the correct manner and time limits. Even your reply says, "...what seems to have happened...". You should file a RTI for this as this is the only way you will get conclusive evidence of what exactly happened with the placement of the rule in the Houses and not what seems to have happened.

Further even if the rule was not properly placed in the Houses within time limits they have a saving provision that states, "...without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule". So as an example if one was incorrectly arrested due to this rule, then even though the laying of the rule was improper and even if later due to court review the Government modifies or cancels the rule, the rule is still valid in all previous cases and hence the arrest is valid. If an order for issuance or refusal of a license was based on this rule would still be valid even if it were modified or cancelled later.

Hence if you really want to be sure, I suggest you at least file an RTI and make its questions and answers public.

In a country where corruption is rampant, where trust in the government – any government – is low, where predatory rogue officials abound, where institutions are routinely subverted to settle scores and where the judiciary cannot be counted on to reliably uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights, it is no surprise there is so much trust deficit between government and people. Gun licenses as with technologies like Genetic Engineering, GPS, the Internet, Cell-phones, Drones, Social Media, Adhaar etc., can be enormously useful to contain crimes but can also be abused and weaponized. Prime Minister Modi himself observed in 2014 that “The biggest need is trust. The government has been run in a way wherein it has not trusted its own citizens. I want to change this. My government will operate in a manner wherein it trusts its citizens rather than doubt them; the environment of trust can change a lot of things”. Looking at developed countries, social scientist Francis Fukuyama concludes that “one of the most important lessons we can learn from an examination of economic life is that a nation’s well-being and its ability to compete is conditioned by a single characteristic: the level of trust inherent in society”. Harvard University research shows that countries with low levels of trust invariably find themselves in a ‘distrust trap’ of greater regulation and lower economic growth. Paradoxically, as governments become less trusting, they tend to enforce more regulation which is particularly true for third-world countries. The instinct to add more regulation is probably the wrong one. There is strong evidence that in prosperous economies, nations liberalise increasing rights, reducing restrictions, expanding social benefits. Conversely, in stagnant economies, they lean towards authoritarianism. Strengthening key institutions, particularly the judiciary, is crucial. An ineffective judicial system is the major contributor to India being a low trust society. Our progress towards a modern democratic and prosperous society will impede unless the government addresses the fundamental issue of trust.

law student wrote:I did look at that. However the rule only needs to be laid before each House for amendment or cancellation and not for approval. From what I have heard it was laid before each House in the correct manner and time limits. Even your reply says, "...what seems to have happened...". You should file a RTI for this as this is the only way you will get conclusive evidence of what exactly happened with the placement of the rule in the Houses and not what seems to have happened.

Further even if the rule was not properly placed in the Houses within time limits they have a saving provision that states, "...without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule". So as an example if one was incorrectly arrested due to this rule, then even though the laying of the rule was improper and even if later due to court review the Government modifies or cancels the rule, the rule is still valid in all previous cases and hence the arrest is valid. If an order for issuance or refusal of a license was based on this rule would still be valid even if it were modified or cancelled later.

Hence if you really want to be sure, I suggest you at least file an RTI and make its questions and answers public.

Very good. Appreciate your response. I will not be filing RTI application at the moment. NAGRI(following is it's website http://gunowners.in/) is tracking this matter. One of the office bearers of NAGRI had posted in this forum that these Rules are with Parliamentary standing committee. Not aware if the the laying of the Rules was improper or not. While talking with one lawyer, he was telling the rules have not been laid down before Parliament as stipulated in the Act. But this needs to be confirmed.

In one of your earlier reply, you were saying about filing PIL. Yes broadly it is a PIL related matter. PIL about only these rules being ultra vires of Arms Act 1959 or about clarity on some provisions of Arms Act 1959 because they are vague or they are over delegated or ultra vires of the Constitution, what do you think? If you could visit another post here viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25661&p=252897#p252897 and go through the material in those five links and give your comments, especially about the last link related to rough draft of PIL.

RKBA is a natural human right. This right is embedded in various Articles of the Constitution. I don't think there is any controversy about this fact. That is why Articles 19(1)(b) and Explanation I in Article 25 are clearly acknowledging this right. That is why when read with Article 14, the State is also enjoying this right. Parliament has the competence to regulate these rights for compelling State interest. I agree. Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right of RKBA by following Article 35 of the Constitution. But does Parliament have competence to reduce non commercial aspect of these rights to subject of licensing and taxation? Article 27 is clearly telling non commercial aspects of rights cannot be taxed by license or by without licensing. Licensing authorities have been created from powers under Article 307 read with Article 265 to regulate “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Thus they lack jurisdiction to license or tax anything that is not within realm of “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Therefore I am unable to see any Parliamentary competence to tax or reduce non commercial aspects of this right to a subject of license. What are your thoughts?

Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

Sci-fic wrote:Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

Yes the discussion is indeed getting interesting. Contribution to this discussion from everyone is welcome, especially those from legal background to the questions I have raised for discussion in my previous post.

RTI reply of MHA would be really useful. Please attach it. When you post, there is option to click "Full Editor & Preview". If you click it, and scroll down a bit, you will find option to attach a file. If you edit any post, then you will get this option directly.

Sci-fic wrote:Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

Yes the discussion is indeed getting interesting. Contribution to this discussion from everyone is welcome, especially those from legal background to the questions I have raised for discussion in my previous post.

RTI reply of MHA would be really useful. Please attach it. When you post, there is option to click "Full Editor & Preview". If you click it, and scroll down a bit, you will find option to attach a file. If you edit any post, then you will get this option directly.

Sir lol, i meant i was unable to find my source at that moment not the option for attachment and i have asked one of my friend who have the copy of that to mail me, will update it soon sir